Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern?

From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl>
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 02:35:28 +0100 (MET)
Fwd Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 22:41:25 -0500
Subject: Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern?
>The Duke of Mendoza presents his compliments.>>Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 04:24:14 +0100 (MET)>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>>>From: Henny van der Pluijm <hvdp@worldonline.nl>>>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: ET Hypothesis: Government Concern?
Hi List,
I wanted to make a few final comments on the Belgian flap.
Firstly, contrary to what the rumors say, French researcher Jean
Pierre Pharabod has informed me in a private email that he is
still of the opinion that the events of the night of March 30-31
involved an unidentified craft:
'Other points of interest: it seems that contacts
number 5 (lasting 8 seconds) and 6 (lasting
11.4 seconds) were not false echoes, but real
contacts on the unidentified craft flying at
subsonic speed in straight line from Brussels
to Liege, and followed by the Glons and Semmerzake
radars. This craft, according to the F-16 radar,
was flying in a regular way, with mean registered
speed 515 knots (contact number 5) and 380 knots
(contact number 6).'
Secondly, contrary to another rumor, there HAS been
correlation between visual observation and radar
contact. This visual observation by gendarmes did
not just involve three lights, which gave rise
to the explanation of starlight being diffracted
- ridiculous enough by itself - but the three
lights were observed to be at the tips of a
triangular craft.
I dismissed Eduardo Russo's 'propagation effects'
or 'zombies' as an explanation for the radar contacts
a bit lightly in a previous post, but I would add
that for any alternative explanation to have any merit,
there should be at least an explanation as to how
these effects might explain the data. And if scientist
August Meessen takes this explanation seriously, does
this also mean he believes that all the radar contacts
could be explained by this effect? J. Pharabod's
email in any case does not suggest this.
And if he does - big IF - , how does he account
for the visual-radar corroberation? And for the
apparent intelligence behind some of the radar
contacts (see below)?
And how does he account for the over 2,500 visual
sightings, 25 videofilms and one photograph that
shows a triangular craft with three lights?
In my Bogus Book, I will explain how statements by
scientists and government officials can be adapted,
sometimes by just leaving out part of the statement
in such a way as to let them conform to our beliefs.
Examples:
Here in the Netherlands people who have read the
book 'UFO!' by a noted UFO debunker - Dutch list
subscribers know who I mean - now know that
the Belgian flap consisted of nothing more than
that one F16 had mistaken the other F16 for a UFO.
This was revealed by 'later investigation'.
Indeed, according to J. Pharabod, it was revealed
in a later investigation that one of the contacts
involved the other F16. And this was new information
for SOBEPS, because the RBAF had failed to inform them
about this previously. Contacts 5 and 6 however,
were real contacts even according to this later
investigation.
Later investigation by SOBEPS on the photograph,
finalized in 1994, produced the same result as
that on the radar contacts: unidentified flying
object.
Again in the Netherlands the rumor has spread that
Gen. De Brouwer, leader of the investigation, has
changed his mind about the case a little after the
LoFlyte 'explanation' of August 1996. However,
in a November 1996 article in UFO Magazine (UK),
Tony Dodd has spoken with De Brouwer and this
article reveals nothing of the sort. This does
not surprise me, because De Brouwer is fully aware
of all the details of the investigation.
Meanwhile, let's look at that most interesting radar
contact sequence again.
Seconds after Heading Speed Altitude
lock-on (degrees) (knots) (feet)=B7
00 200 150 7000=B7
01 200 150 7000=B7
02 200 150 7000=B7
03 200 150 7000=B7
04 sharp 200 acceleration 150 6000=B7
05 turn 270 =3D 22 g 560 6000=B7
06 270 560 6000=B7
07 270 570 6000=B7
08 270 560 7000=B7
09 270 550 7000=B7
10 210 560 9000=B7
11 210 570 10000=B7
12 210 560 11000=B7
13 210 570 10000=B7
14 270 770 7000=B7
15 270 770 6000=B7
16 270 780 6000=B7
17 270 790 5000=B7
18 290 1010 4000=B7
19 290 1000 3000=B7
20 290 990 2000=B7
21 290 990 1000=B7
22 300 990 0000=B7
22.5 300 980 0000 Break
lock=B7
A former US Air Force employee has kindly pointed out to me
the possibility that the unknown object performed a so-called
'Split S' manoeuver, a manoeuver to escape from a radar lock.
Indeed, when one visualizes the sequence of altitudes,
speeds and headings, a Split S comes out.
Combine that with the visual corroberation and
the acceleration of the signal and the data
appear to be highly suggestive of an intelligently
operated craft that tried to escape its pursuers.
Nevertheless, despite the wealth of all the publicly
available data, in the Netherlands we now know that
one F16 mistook his colleague for a UFO (silly Belgians
again, a bit short on grey matter as always),
in Belgium everyone is assured the flap was
caused by a secret American experimental aircraft,
while in Italy the events of March 30-31 are
explained as zombies.
I hope that around 50 % of the members of this
list now knows better.
Finally, having provided the debunkers with more
facts than they can safely dismiss as 'nothing
serious went on', their last line of defense
seems to be that the F16 pilots did not actually see the
object they were chasing. I would simply say: 'So what?'
Let me point out a simple trick that every military
pilot uses when he wants to avoid being seen against
the dark of the night: he switches off his lights.
Enough for now, at least for me.
__________________________________________
/ Met vriendelijke groet/Best wishes \
Henny van der Pluijm
hvdp@worldonline.nl
Technology Pages
http://home.worldonline.nl/~hvdp
\______________________________________/